Phil: Some people are "pretty convinced there's not going to be a year next year"

"Who knows what the NBA is going to look like next year?" Jackson continued. "It's going to take on a whole different proportion. How long is it going to last? I think there are some people who are pretty convinced there's not going to be a year next year."

It's the team's choice to take risks. There's no one to blame but the team. That's not a young player issue, that's a team management issue. Drafting young guys does not slow the game down. If they're not ready to hit the floor they typically don't. If they're not ready for extended minutes they typically don't. Teams taking guys with on year of college are still take nearly the same amount of risk.

DeRozan was a huge risk based on potential. He stunk, was a total disappointment, for most of his one and only season of college. He got hot in the second half and impressed enough that Colangelo gave him a chance. It was an excellent choice but a risky choice.

Ok, it's the team's choice, for sure. And I agree, there's always going to be risks, even out of college. But I think we saw more and more teams drafting high school players and taking bigger and bigger risks. When teams are allowed to take those risks then there's more of a chance of getting a bust.

If my memory serves correct, I think there was a D League but it was just beginning. I love the D League and think it's a great tool. Your argument is that is where the high school kids could be playing. My argument is that is another roster spot taken from a vet that knows the game.

It's the team's choice to take risks. There's no one to blame but the team. That's not a young player issue, that's a team management issue. Drafting young guys does not slow the game down. If they're not ready to hit the floor they typically don't. If they're not ready for extended minutes they typically don't. Teams taking guys with on year of college are still take nearly the same amount of risk.

DeRozan was a huge risk based on potential. He stunk, was a total disappointment, for most of his one and only season of college. He got hot in the second half and impressed enough that Colangelo gave him a chance. It was an excellent choice but a risky choice.

If a player with a lot of potential, but will take time to develop, is available, teams HAVE to take a chance on him or else they might lose out on a great player. The best teams gamble, and you're asking them not to do that. What would be better is to not put them in the position where they have to choose. Raise the age limit and make drafting a little less of a gamble and have the rookies a little more polished. It's good for the team AND the fans.

Their view is that guys shouldn't be forced to do anything. Those old guys can do what most old guys do who don't want to give it up, move to China. Brandon Jennings should have never been forced to go overseas to be a pro when he wanted to be a pro.

If a guy is ready and willing he should be allowed to turn pro. Laws put in place which take rights away from people to "protect" them are never really put in place to protect them, they're put in place to serve other purposes. The age limit did nothing to help the NBA. The NBA is getting those kids no matter what. That rule was all about the NCAA losing out on marketable stars who were going to the NBA young.

i see your point, and in alot of ways i agree with you...

but, for me, it comes down to work experience. i can't walk into any accounting firm and go "hey, i was great at math in high school. give me your highest paying job right now!"

the ncaa and foreign leagues give the league a means of ensuring they invest their money in employees who havent only tested their skills against other children.

at the end of the day, its a job. there has to be requirements or else what you get is kwame brown going #1.

the NBA should be able to put "X amount of years of relevant work experience" on their monster dot com job posting. right?

Well, assuming the Owners come back with a reasonable proposal this could all be over in a couple weeks! Wonderful!... ugh.

NBA Commissioner David Stern said Friday the league plans to submit to the players' union a revised proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement within the next couple of weeks.

Neither Stern nor deputy commissioner Adam Silver would offer details of what would be in their proposal to replace the current CBA, which expires June 30. They are not close to a new deal, triggering fears of a lockout, which Silver says is "beginning to have an impact on our business.''

The league submitted its original proposal in January 2010 and the players quickly rejected it during a meeting at the All-Star weekend in Dallas. The union offered a counterproposal last July, but the owners had no interest in it, and there has been no progress since then.

But the league seems willing to reopen negotiations. Stern said his negotiating committee would look to set up a meeting with the players' side once the new proposal has been delivered.

"There are other ways to reach the same goal, and that is a system in which all 30 teams can compete, and, if they are well managed, to make a profit. We have never suggested to the union that there's only one way to accomplish that end. And so, we have gone back to ownership,'' Silver said.

"But the goal has not changed and will not change from the team standpoint. We need a new system, and the current system is broken and is unsustainable.''

Owners are seeking radical changes to the CBA. Stern said the league is projecting losses of about $300 million - less than the projections in recent years - and Silver said roughly 22 teams will lose money this season.

The issue for the league remains the players' guarantee of 57 percent of basketball-related income, and the union has said it is open to discussing a reduction of its share. However, Silver disputed that, saying players' association executive director Billy Hunter told him 57 percent remains the target.

"If players are taking are taking 57 percent of the gross, it's mathematically impossible to move to a profitable position without a new system,'' Silver said.

Au Contraire

There is no way you're going to convince me that this isn't a political issue. One year of college isn't enough to mold a player. Most guys in the league take 3-5 years before they show the tell tale signs of if they're going to work out or not. The league sells this mandate on the premise that it's the best thing for the players' but if they truly meant what they're saying they would mandate "college degree or 23 years of age or no entry into the draft". This is about keeping a good relationship with the NCAA by not stealing their cash cows that the NBA doesn't need at age 17 or 18 anyway. That one year can make a big difference to a college program looking to sell merchandise and tickets. That year doesn't mean a thing to the NBA who already have their billion dollar money makers branded and established. Come on guys, don't fool yourself into thinking this is a social action. This is an political action. The league makes moves with the business in mind. At the end of the day, the age of draft busts doesn't affect their business. Just as many people are going to bust each year no matter what. There are only so many jobs to go around and the real stars who are going to make them the big coin are earning a place in the league one way or another.

People use Kwame Brown as an example of why it's wrong to allow guys straight out of high school. The guy has no heart. He would have failed no matter what route he took. The guy who drafted him is Michael Jordan and he's proven to not be able to manage a team successfully. We're talking about the guy who drafted a high lotto bust at both extremes. We have Kwames Brown, fresh out of high school. Then we have Adam Morrison, NCAA sweetheart who played four years of college and was a scoring champion. He's even more of a bust. Poor managers are going to find ways to fail and good managers are going to find ways to succeed no matter what the age minimum is on draft prospects.

There is no way you're going to convince me that this isn't a political issue. One year of college isn't enough to mold a player. Most guys in the league take 3-5 years before they show the tell tale signs of if they're going to work out or not. The league sells this mandate on the premise that it's the best thing for the players' but if they truly meant what they're saying they would mandate "college degree or 23 years of age or no entry into the draft". This is about keeping a good relationship with the NCAA by not stealing their cash cows that the NBA doesn't need at age 17 or 18 anyway. That one year can make a big difference to a college program looking to sell merchandise and tickets. That year doesn't mean a thing to the NBA who already have their billion dollar money makers branded and established. Come on guys, don't fool yourself into thinking this is a social action. This is an political action. The league makes moves with the business in mind. At the end of the day, the age of draft busts doesn't affect their business. Just as many people are going to bust each year no matter what. There are only so many jobs to go around and the real stars who are going to make them the big coin are earning a place in the league one way or another.

People use Kwame Brown as an example of why it's wrong to allow guys straight out of high school. The guy has no heart. He would have failed no matter what route he took. The guy who drafted him is Michael Jordan and he's proven to not be able to manage a team successfully. We're talking about the guy who drafted a high lotto bust at both extremes. We have Kwames Brown, fresh out of high school. Then we have Adam Morrison, NCAA sweetheart who played four years of college and was a scoring champion. He's even more of a bust. Poor managers are going to find ways to fail and good managers are going to find ways to succeed no matter what the age minimum is on draft prospects.

The cream always rises to the top.

Whether it's a political issue or not I still don't agree. Michael Jordan is a doofus when it comes to being a GM but I would hope even him wouldn't draft him at #1 again after watching him for a year in college.

As a general rule do you agree that typically players take longer to adapt to the NBA from high school? Don't you agree that while player X is developing in college that the roster spot that he would have used up the NBA could be used by a vet who knows the game and can make an impact?

As a general rule do you agree that typically players take longer to adapt to the NBA from high school?

I agree and I disagree depending on what you're asking me. If you're asking me if a player who plays one year of college is better than a kid who just played his first NBA pro season straight out of high school then I would say NO. If you're asking me to compare a player with one year of college to a guy fresh out of high school then yes but that's obviously not a fair comparison. The NBA has a developmental league for a reason guys. Most of those those people in D league played NCAA and most of them were "the man" on their NCAA squads. And a kid out of high school who goes high in the lotto is probably getting more PT in D-league than most freshman in NCAA ball.

Employee wrote:

Don't you agree that while player X is developing in college that the roster spot that he would have used up the NBA could be used by a vet who knows the game and can make an impact?

If we're talking the 13th man dressed on the bench or the two guys in suits then I say no. Those guys aren't helping no one. They're there for emergencies in most cases. They're typically players the GM is taking a flier on and have little long term future or impact in the NBA.

One more thing.The NBA PA looks out for all it's people. It's there so they can collectively stand up for themselves. They realize that allowing high school grads in will take away a job from someone else. This reason alone should tell you they've sniffed out this age limit rule as a load of crap. If it truly helped the players they would endorse it. It has nothing to do with helping the players succeed.

And how many kids used to opt out of playing college for the NBA? Very few, typically the most talented. And what of those without the marks to go to a good program but have the skills to get drafted?

I agree and I disagree depending on what you're asking me. If you're asking me if a player who plays one year of college is better than a kid who just played his first NBA pro season straight out of high school then I would say NO. If you're asking me to compare a player with one year of college to a guy fresh out of high school then yes but that's obviously not a fair comparison. The NBA has a developmental league for a reason guys. Most of those those people in D league played NCAA and most of them were "the man" on their NCAA squads. And a kid out of high school who goes high in the lotto is probably getting more PT in D-league than most freshman in NCAA ball.

The point is, what is a bigger gamble, drafting a high school player or a sophomore? And which one is going to take longer to develop? The answer is pretty obvious and why I'd want the age limit raised.

I agree with the age restriction, but there's really no right or wrong when it comes to the discussion. i believe that players do benefit from the year of college both mentally and physically when preparing for the NBA. It also gives the scouts and general managers a better view on the overall talent and skill level. agents were exposing this before with potential, athleticism and size.

And how many kids used to opt out of playing college for the NBA? Very few, typically the most talented. And what of those without the marks to go to a good program but have the skills to get drafted?

Very few? Not when comparing the years. There was an influx of high schoolers and international players declaring for the draft throughout the 2000's before the rule was implemented. As i mentioned above, they weren't necessarily the most talented, just the most intriguing prospects.

Four Scenarios That Could Play Out With A Hard Cap

Contracts are phased out. You can't pursue players in free agency until your salary drops below the hard cap. You can't extend contracts or re-sign players if you are over the hard cap. Once below the hard cap you can never exceed the hard cap again.

Contracts are reduced across the board to a certain proportion so that all teams are below the hard cap. (This really hurts for guys like Bosh who took less money to go to Miami to begin with).

Contracts are reduced and contracts are phased out. Contract are reduced but not enough to get luxury tax teams below the hard cap. The rest is accomplished via letting those bigger contracts expire.

The salary cap is increased $10-20M and the rest is taken care of by reducing contracts and/or phasing them out.

Any way you dice it. A hard cap hurts the big spenders competitive edge the most. It may or may not hurt the Superstar's salaries.

I think #4 is the scenario you would be most likely to see the PA agree to.

Contracts are phased out. You can't pursue players in free agency until your salary drops below the hard cap. You can't extend contracts or re-sign players if you are over the hard cap. Once below the hard cap you can never exceed the hard cap again.

Contracts are reduced across the board to a certain proportion so that all teams are below the hard cap. (This really hurts for guys like Bosh who took less money to go to Miami to begin with).

Contracts are reduced and contracts are phased out. Contract are reduced but not enough to get luxury tax teams below the hard cap. The rest is accomplished via letting those bigger contracts expire.

The salary cap is increased $10-20M and the rest is taken care of by reducing contracts and/or phasing them out.

Any way you dice it. A hard cap hurts the big spenders competitive edge the most. It may or may not hurt the Superstar's salaries.

I think #4 is the scenario you would be most likely to see the PA agree to.

#4 would be my vote as well. Most teams pay up to the luxury tax - make the luxury tax the new hard cap. (A little simplistic but that is the jist of it).

agreed with number 4. i could also see them implementing the allan houston rule to get those luxury taxed teams underneath the next proposed cap. i'd personally like to see the luxury tax threshold set as the new cap.

Sure it is. They could allow minimum contract signings which is currently less than $1M. That would get them over the initial hurdle.

Personally I also feel they should abolish the rookie scale if they bring in a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts to make it more fair to new players coming into the league. You wouldn't see Europeans like Rubio be so hesitant about coming over here then. The NFL doesn't use a rookie scale and it works fine.

Sure it is. They could allow minimum contract signings which is currently less than $1M. That would get them over the initial hurdle.

Personally I also feel they should abolish the rookie scale if they bring in a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts to make it more fair to new players coming into the league. You wouldn't see Europeans like Rubio be so hesitant about coming over here then. The NFL doesn't use a rookie scale and it works fine.

Hmmmm, interesting. I guess if there's a hard cap and they reduce the number of years of guaranteed contracts I could agree. I'm always so hesitant to give young players a huge amount of cash. There's been some careers ruined from too much too soon.

Ah, that's why I've been mentioning non-guaranteed contracts. The NFL system doesn't guarantee anything but bonuses and they can be avoided most times by cutting the guy before a certain deadline.

On the flip side NFL teams typically renegotiate contracts with players when the team is threatening to cut the player because they can't afford him OR when the player suddenly is underpaid for his level of contributions compared with others in the league. The NFL system rewards production. No team is stuck with cap crushing dead weight "Eddy Curry contracts."

Optimism???

Some Optimism On The Labor Front: One of the more common topics around the NBA Playoffs recently has been the state of the NBA with regards to its ongoing labor talks with its players.

In a surprising turn of events, there is a growing consensus that if there is a work stoppage in the NBA, it would not be a long one and that unless Billy Hunter tries to make this process personal, there appears to be some degree of willingness on the NBA Owner's part to make a reasonable deal.

Several high profile agents have said they were doubtful that a lockout was inevitable and said they were hearing positive things from the process.

During the last NBA Board of Governors meeting the NBA's Labor Committee was authorized to make a new proposal to the players and it's believed several of the points the NBA Players had material objections to are being removed from the discussion or modified in such a way as to make them more palatable to the players.

While the exact details of the Owners' new offer is not clear yet, as some say it's still being crafted, the general idea is that the long rumored "hard cap stance" and roll back of existing contracts is being tabled.

The NBA does want to reduce the amount of dollars paid to players, but is now open to a phased reduction in the percentage being given to the players and its believed a number of the salary cap exceptions that are commonplace are to be phased out completely over the course of the next agreement.

The owners are said to be willing to commit to a larger overall salary cap number in exchange for changes in percentages given to players and how the salary cap figures are calculated.

In short, the NBA salary cap is currently set at $58.044 million this season. It is believed the Owners' new proposal would have that number increasing every year of the deal, in exchange for the phased reduction of cap exceptions, a reduction in the number of years allowed on contracts and an overall adjustment of the mechanics of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

So what do the players get out of this? No one loses a dime on their existing deals. There will be no work stoppage or lost wages.

The compromise… the Players won't get 57% of revenues, and eventually there will be a harder cap system down the road, but one that could be substantially greater than the $45 million hard cap initially proposed by the owners.

The Current average team salary in the NBA is $67.5 million, with the Lakers and Mavericks clocking in at over $90 million in team salaries and the Orlando Magic just shy of that figure at $89.1 million.

If the Owners can put a proposal on the table that keeps average team salaries in the $65 million range, while they move towards a hard cap in the high $60 million range, the NBA can get what it wants while not costing the players any real money.

If the NBA owners stand firm to their $45 million number, there is no chance for a deal.

However more and more people are talking optimistically about a deal in July, so we'll see if reasonable people can make a reasonable deal.